avakesh

Avos 3:4, 1+1=3

But two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them, as is stated, "Then the G-d-fearing conversed with one another, and G-d listened and heard; and it was inscribed before Him in a book of remembrance for those who fear G-d and give thought to His name" (Malachi 3:16).

In the first part of the mishna, two indviduals were united by silence and mutual rejection. In this part, they are united through conversation. But they are not only united, the Divine Presence rests among them.

How does this work? How does two become three?

Shekhina, Divine Pesence, is a mysterious concept. We do know that it is called in Kabbalistic sources, Knesses Yisroel - the gathering of Israel. A clue is that the very term Sheckhina come for the verse in  Exodus 25:8, "They shal make me a sanctuary and I will dwell(shakhanti) amongst them".

There are various levels of Shekhina, from the very highest to the ones that we sense among us, all really one and the same(See the beginning of Maamar Bosi L'Gani). The godliness that exists among us is inseparable from the basic defining quality of humans, that we know each other as humans only through and in terms of human society and relationship. To restate it in simple but perhaps shocking terms so to say that G-d only exists in the human realm of relationship and community. If there were not a society of inter-related human beings to sense and enshrine G-d as the King and Master, Friend and Parent, Helper and Judge, there would, perhaps be no Hashem in this world, except as distant Cause.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it really fall? Had there been no humans, would there be G-d (at least in the terms that we understand and perceive him)?

This is what He wanted. "G-d desired to have a dwelling place in the lower worlds (Dira B'Tachtonim( Tanchuma Pikudei2)".

When two individuals share disdain and rejection, they are united by negatvity. But, Hashem is not there, for that is not an interaction that humans can share with the Master of the World, because any rejection between Hashem and humans is one sided. Hashem never rejects. When two people sit and positively interact, especially when they speak of Torah (within which Hashem is enclothed through a different and distinct mechanism), Shekhina dwells among them, for godliness is an aspect of every human interaction. We are only human in as much as we relate to G-d.

Avos 3:4, Alone together

Rabbi Chanina son of Tradyon would say: Two who sit and no words of Torah pass between them, this is a session of scorners, as is stated, "And in a session of scorners he did not sit" (Psalms 1:1).

As we continue to consider and weigh different kinds of belonging and not belonging, this Mishna begins to tell us us about different groups of people. We start with two people, discuss two for while and, in Mishna six proceed all the way to 10.

Perhaps as a literary technique, our first group is two who are disconnected. They sit together but do not speak to one another. Yet, they are not two individuals but a "session of scorners"(moshav leitzim), members of a group. Ruach Chaim points out that these two do not believe that there have anything to gain from a conversation, for each one considers his colleague to be so inferior in Torah as not to have anything to contribute. Paradoxically, in their separateness they are united. By rejecting each other, they become a group of scoffers.

I remember that in my youth I did not wish to be a conformist. I would wear a dark gray hat, which was more accepted at that time than it would be now, and in this way, I thought, I was my own man. This lasted until a wise man told me that everyone belongs to group. All that I was accomplishing is to be thought of as belonging to group of nonconformists. You see that rejection can be as unifying as non-rejection.

In one way, the sages indicate to us that speech is not the only thing that connects individuals. Many things can be the glue that holds a group together. Disdain can unite as surely as respect. One who had seen dysfunctional marriages and families can certainly attest the abiding ability of negativity to unite.

However, this not only that there is no speaking between these two people at all; it is that words of Torah do not pass between them. The essence of being a Jew is being united through the Torah. To sit and not discussed Torah is unifying through rejection, but it is not in any way as good as unity through unity. Perhaps, a paradox, but a paradox with meaning.

The Mishna then goes on to show us that it is much better to be held together by Torah then by rejection of Torah.

Avos 3:3 - Kingdom of this Earth

Rabbi Chanina, deputy to the kohanim, would say: Pray for the integrity of the government; for were it not for the fear of its authority, a man would swallow his neighbor alive.

The teaching of R. Chanina is interesting because he was a late Tanna, we lived just before the destruction of the Temple. By skipping more than 100 years forward to R. Chanina, the Mishna indicates to us a thematic connection between R. Akavia ben Mehallel and the teaching of R. Chanina. R. Akvia was focused on individual versus the group, but that was no longer the actual question a hundered years later. Now, the question is individual versus the government.

What happened in the decades before the destruction of the Holy Temple? Well, this was the time of increasing anarchy in the land of Israel, with the appearance of homegrown brigands and terrorists, and progressive weakening of governmental authority. At the same time, the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven, a place that was supposed to and radically better than the kingdom of this Earth, began to circulate. It is very clear from the Gospels that the radical teaching that devalued temporal authority and considered obeisance to it to be a betrayal of the Heavenly Kingdom, has gained many adherents at that time. Whereas before the Rabbis were focused on the questions of the religious meaning of individual service to God versus national destiny, the very value of earthly authority was now being questioned. Rabbi Chanina defined two different charges of earthly authority. One was to serve as a moral and ethical force. The Roman prefect never fulfilled that function. However, it was time to remind faithful Jews that the government also served as a deterrent to interpersonal and intercommunal violence. It may not be fulfilling a positive role that Shimon Hatsadik envisioned, but it was still a powerful barrier to general anarchy. That alone justified that Jews should pray even for an unrighteous government, even for one that represented and elevated values that where radically at conflict with Torah values.

Avos 3:1, A note about Akavia and converts

I have been pursuing a line of thought that Akavia represented a distinct school from that of Hillel and Shammia and the defining characteristic of his school was extreme individualism. With this in mind, a certain well known Talmudic passage becomes more intelligible.

Our Rabbis taught(Shabbos 31a): A certain gentile once came before Shammai and asked him: "How many Torot do you have?"

"Two," he replied: "the Written Torah and the Oral Torah."

"I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah. Make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].

Shammai scolded and rejected him in anger. When he went before Hillel, Hillel accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, Hillel taught him, "Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet." The following day Hillel reversed the letters.

"But yesterday you did not teach them to me like this," he protested.

"Must you then not rely upon me? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral Torah as well."

There is a Halachic problem with what Hillel did, which Rashi points out. Talmud says in Bechoros 30 that a convert who accepts all of the Torah except for one matter is not allowed to convert. How could Hillel take in a convert who did not accept the Oral Law. Rashi answers that this convert did accept the Oral Torah; he just didn't believe that it was given by Hashem. This is a kind of answer that generates volumes of discussion, and it did exactly that in the subsequent generations.

It appears to me, however, that this convert did believe in Oral Law but he did not trust either Shammai or Hillel to transmit their versions of it to him. This is why he said: "In regard to Oral Law, I don't believe you". He did not say that he did not believe in it, only that the did not believe Shammai and HIllel. He was quite an individualist and he wanted to learn it from someone like Akavia ben Mehallel.

You see from here an indication, if not a proof, that an alternative formulation of Oral Law existed in the days of Hillel and Shammai, presumably that of Akavia ben Mehallel.

Avos 3:1, Closing the age of Akavia

So, Akavia ben Mehalel represented a tradition that was a parallel and an alternative to Hillel's as received by Shammaya and Avtalion, a tradition that ended with Akavia. The little that we know about Akavia's teaching does not suffice to tell us much more that it was a deeply individualistic tradition that valued truth over conformity and  located the center of religious experience within the individual.

"Akavia ben (son of) Mehalalel said, consider three things and YOUll not come to sin. Know from where YOU have come, to where YOU are heading, and before Whom YOU will give justification and accounting. From where have you come: from a putrid drop (of semen); to where are you heading: to a place of dirt, worms and maggots; and before Whom will you give justification and accounting: before the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He."

Compare this centering of the Fear of Hashem within man conscience and the attitude of Rebbi, who placed it squarely with G-d. Rebbi said in the beginning of chapter 2 of Avos: "Consider three tings and you will not come to sin: The Eye that sees, the Ear that hears and all your actions are written in the book".

However, like all great truths and all disagreements for the sake of Heaven, Akaviah ben Mehallel's approach survived through Ben Azzai in the 3rd chapter of Derech Eretz Rabbah. This part of this masechta is often cited by Rishonim as the tractate "Ben Azzai" and it contains some moral reflections on the origin and destiny of man. This section is considerably older than chapters 4-11. Ben Azzai says almost the same things as Akavia but he introduces a fourth theme and subtly shifts the emphasis form the entirely man-centric focus to a man cum G-d perception that is more compatible with HIllel's overall balanced approach. He does this by first laying out Akavia's approach and then repeating it with a crucial modification that focuses on Hashem's role as the  Judge.

Ben Azzai says: He who places four things before his eyes, will not ever sin. From where he came, and where he goes and Who judges him and what will be.

Form where did he come? From a place of darkness and obscurity.

From where he came? From a place of inpurity.

Where he goes? To render others impure.

 

From where he came? From a spolied wetness and from a place that no man can see.

Where he goes? To Sheol and Destruction in Gehenna and to be burned in fire.

Who is his Judge? His judge is not flesh and blood but the Lord of all things, before Whom there is injustice and no forgetting and partiality and no bribes.

What will be? Worms and maggots, as it says(Job 25)" even man is worm and son fo man maggots".

 Several conclusions jump at me when I look at this teaching and compare it with that of Akavia.

 First, Ben Azzai had two versions of Akavia's statement, both of which he listed.

Second, Akavia's statement is then reworked in such a way as to make it more balanced and include the awareness of Hashem as Judge in addition to the man-centered approach of Akavia. In this fashion, the teaching of Akavia is restated in a way that is much more balanced, more Hillel than Akavia.

Finally, we don't know whether Akvia and Ben Azzai both received a tradition that is even older than Hillel and Akavia, except that Ben Azzai wrote it down in the way that it came to him through the prism of the school of HIllel and Akavia formulated it in his own tradition, which, came to an end with him.

 Where might have this tradition come from? Sfas Emes on Avos says that the three questions of Akavia ben Mehallel are the same as the three questions that Yakov warned his messengers that Eisav will ask:

1.From where do you come?

2.Where are you going?

3.Whose is are these ones before you?

He explains that these are questions which will produce the Fear of Heaven, if a Jew asks them, but depression and distancing from G-d, if it is Eisav who asks them.

This is a profound lesson. It also may be the source for the tradition that came down to us in two formulation, of Akavia ben Mehalel and Ben Azzai.

Avos 3:1,The other Hillel

Now that we finished the first two chapters of Fathers. we can pause and briefly review. We saw how the initial several mishnas of the first chapters reflected the ongoing search for how to re-establish religious life after the destruction of the First Temple and the Return, proceeding from the utopian theocratic vision of Shimon Hatsadik through its dissolution under the venal and unprincipled rule of later Hasmonaim and Herod. It was not until Hillel enshrined the developing understanding that Judaism will survive not as a religion of the nation and not even as a religion of isolated fellowships and groups but as a religion of the individuals banding together, that its survival became assured. From Hillel on, this was the inspiration that motivated religious teachers.

From Hillel, the course of  knowledge flowed in two parallel but distinct traditions. The first one was through HIllel's descendants, the chain of Nesiim (Princes) and the other through his students to R. Yochanan ben Zakkai and his 5 pupils. The second chapter completed these chains of transmission, except that it also incorporated R. Tarfon , who was a part of an independent and unrelated school but whose recorded teaching modified and argued with R. Eliezer, a student of Hillel. Now, in the third chapter, we continue the record of individuals who perpetuated other strands of Masora.

"Akavia ben (son of) Mehalalel said, consider three things and you will not come to sin. Know from where you have come, to where you are heading, and before Whom you will give justification and accounting. From where have you come: from a putrid drop (of semen); to where are you heading: to a place of dirt, worms and maggots; and before Whom will you give justification and accounting: before the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He."

Akaviah ben Mehalel is an interesting Tanna. There are many echoes and parallels to Hillel. Not only does he appear to have been a student of Shamaya and Avtalyon like Hillel (Seder Tannaim v'AMoraim based on Brochos 19a), but even his name, Mehalel, recalls HIllel's name. At the same time, his name suggests his outsider status- literally, it means "He who was at the side". He appears to have somewhat discounted Shamaya and Avtalion and had been their school's rival, for which he may have been excommunicated.

We don'tknow much about him, but what we do know, suggests that he was independently minded and did not commit to any particular school.While discussing whether a female convert drinks Sotah water, Akaviah dismissed the testimony that Shamaya and Avtalyon gave such waters to a convert to drink by saying , "Dugma hishkuha(To one like themselves they gave to drink). This ascription of partiality to the revered Shamaya and Avtalyon led to the sentence of nidduy(excommunication). Before his death, Akaviah admonished his son to submit to the views of the majority, even in the cases where he himself had shown persistent opposition. His son expressing surprise at so apparent an inconsistency, the dying sage replied: "I have received my tradition from a majority of scholars, and so I was bound to conform to the tradition I had received; and so are they bound by their tradition. But you heard the traditions both from myself and from my opponents; from a minority and from a majority, and it is proper for you to reject the opinions of the individual and adopt the views of the majority". Here we see that his chain of transmission was not the same as that of the majority of the rabbis of his later years.

Another characteristic trait of  Akavia was the great stress he laid on personal merit. When, on his deathbed, he was requested by his son to recommend him to the sages, he declined to do so. His son inquired whether his father had discovered in him any trait which rendered him unworthy of such recommendation; and 'Akabia's reply was, "No! but your own deeds will make thee welcome, or thine own deeds will make thee be distanced".(Edyuos 5:6-7)

It is not surprising then that Akaviah's version of the three things that protect from sin is quite different from that of Rebbi. Rebbi said in the beginning of chapter 2 of Avos: "Consider three tings and you will not come to sin: The Eye that sees, the Ear that hears and all your actions are written in the book".

We will, please Hashem, take this in the next post on Avos.

Avos 22:19: There is always Torah

R. Tarfon said that, unlike what R. Eliezer so optimistically portrays, we are not automatically guaranteed to accomplish even if we try very hard to do Hashem's will. In the areas of communal service, kindness to others, and performance off Commandments sometimes an individual does not succeed, not because he or she does not try, but because, by necessity, one must rely on others and "the workers are lazy". R. Tarfon continues to explain . I intentionally translate in a way that will highlight parallelism and contrast in this mishna and show how R.Tarfon sees a different, a darker reality than R. Eliezer.

He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say,

it is not upon you to complete the task,
BUT
you are not free to idle from it.
 
If you have learned much Torah, you will be given much reward.
                                                                                                                                                                         And And faithful is your Employer that He will reward you for your labor
BUT
know that the reward of the righteous will be in the World to Come."
First, it is possible that you will not accomplish much because your colleagues are lazy, the time in which you leave Is not propitious, the times are not conducive to spreading Torah and mitzvos.
Second, of course you will be rewarded for your efforts but not in this world. You may have worked hard but you will not be appreciated in this world, through no fault of your own. You will be rewarded but not here.

There is one exception. There is one type of a Divine service for which you will always be rewarded. It is the study of Torah.
R. Tarfon sets up as a sort of a chiastic structure where the first and the last statements contain contrasts and, at the same time parallel each other. I

middle and in between them is the statement, which is the focus of the Mishna (that is how chiastic structures work). Yes, there are times when no matter what you do the generation is galloping away from Torah and no matter how you try you cannot stop them. Yes, you may wear out your days, nay, your entire life in what appears to be a futile, idealistic effort to bring people close to the Torah, which they do not want. There were many periods in our history when such was the case, for exmaple, in Europe the Enlightenment and, in America, until recently, the last 200 years. Unique individuals, toiled in obscurity and privation, lonely voices in the wilderness, not supported by their communities or, even by many like-minded friends. Their reward came much in the future.

Yes, but there is always a refuge. One can escape into the study of the Torah. Torah study will always serve as its own reward.

 If you have learned much Torah, you will be given much reward.

Tosefta Brochos (6:30)

Hillel the Elder says, “At the time when they gather in you should spread, and at the time when they spread you should gather in.”

 At the time that you see that the Torah is beloved to all of the Jewish people and everyone rejoices in it, you should spread it (i.e. teach it) as it is said, “The one that spreads gathers in more …” (Mishlei 11:24) And at the time that you see that the Torah is being forgotten from the Jewish people and no one is paying attention to it, gather it in (i.e. learn it privately to yourself and do not teach), as it is said, “It is time to do for Hashem, they have forsaken your Torah.”(Tehillim 119:126)

It may be that this approach was later rejected. The Tosefta itself initimates this by prefacing Hillel's words with: "Originally, when the Torah would get forgotten from the Jewish people the elders would swallow it (i.e. the Torah) between themselves, [and not publicly teach it to the masses in great detail(ibid 29). So this approach. See here for an argument that R. Meir changed the policy of the early Tannaim and said that, on the contrary, when there is no interest in Torah, is when you should teach it:  "Rebbi Meir says, “[If] they have forsaken your Torah, [then] it is time to do for Hashem [and teach the Torah to the masses even with more force than before].”

Avos:II:18 R. Tarfon: LIfe is work!

We just learned that Rabbi Elazar said: Be diligent in the study of Torah. Know what to answer a heretic. Know before Whom you toil. And faithful is your Employer that He will pay you the reward for your labor."

We should be continuing the chain of the teachings of the students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. Instead we detour to R. Tarfon. The question is why?

R. Tarfon was not at all a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. In fact, the was probably not a student of Beis Hillel. Rashi to Yevamos 15b says that he was a student of Beis Shammai (remember how he laid down to say the Shema in accordance with the teaching of Beis Shammai in the first MIshna of Brochos, see this book for a discussion?). If so, why do we encounter him in this inconvenient place, right after the chapter dedicated to a different school and a different tradition?

Tosafos Yom Tov in the beginning of the third chapter of Avos says that it is because R. Tarfon says something similar to what R. Elazar just said. R. Elazar said that you Employer is faithful to pay you the wages of your labor. R. Tarfon says:

"...the day is short, the work is great, the workers are lazy, the reward is great, and the Master of the house presses."

It would seem that R. Tarfon is just amplifying what R. Elazar says, but if this is so, why does he need to say anything at all. In fact, R. Tarfon argues with R. Elazar by shifting emphasis. This becomes clear when we consider his other teaching on this topic(Avos, II:17).

He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not upon you to complete the task, but you are not free to idle from it. If you have learned much Torah, you will be given much reward. And faithful is your Employer that He will reward you for your labor. And know that the reward of the righteous will be in the World to Come."

What does he say in this mishan that he did not just say in the previous one? Another difference is that here he says that you do not have to finish the work. Why not? Where is that dramatic sense of urgency that rang through the previous mishna? How is it not yours to finish when the day is so short, the work is so great and the Employer is pushing. Doesn't the Employer know that the work is not up to you to finish?

Well, for one thing, his previous statement is about "workers" in general, and this one is about YOU! I suggest that the main disagreement between R. Elazar and R. Tarfon in how they respectively viewed the very important question of. "What is the task of man in his world?" Is one's potential to accomplish solely in his own hands or not? What if you try and try and others do not let you succeed or they subvert your efforts?

R. Elazar, with an optimism worthy of the student of HIllel, maintained that it is all under one's control. Study Torah, don't be dissuaded from your holy task and Hashem will pay you IN THIS WORLD.

R. Tarfon understood that success is not only in the hands of the indvidual, for every person is also a part of a group. One can work very hard but if one's co-workers do not co-operate, are lazy, or just don't give a care, the one person who works very hard may also not be able to produce all that much? A more realistic picture is that "the workers are lazy" and the day is short and if they don't put out, not much gets done, no matter how hard one works.

R. Tarfon said that even then you must try. The work may not get done but it is not up to you to complete it. If you learn much Torah, whether you influence others with it or not, you will be rewarded. The work is not up to you to complete but you must work nevertheless. You will still be rewarded. Where will this reward be doled out? Not in this world, in which  you accomplished but little because others did not work alongside you. The reward will be given in the World to Come, for there and only there is sincere effort appreciated in its full Glory.

 

 

Avos 2:16, Do not answer a heretic

Rabbi Elazar said: Be diligent in the study of Torah. Know what to answer a heretic. Know before Whom you toil. And faithful is your Employer that He will pay you the reward for your labor."

The way that the mishna is presented and translated, leaves us with four parts to it. Personally, I prefer to maintain uniformity. Since most teachings in Avos are in three parts, I have a bias towards the versions of this mishna that are tripartite. I explained a previous mishnathis way as well. There are different warnings and textual variants in this mishna and some of them demand this translation:

Rabbi Elazar said: Be diligent in the study of Torah so that you know what to answer a heretic. Know before Whom you toil. And faithful is your Employer that He will pay you the reward for your labor."

However, this version raises some questions. First, why does it require diligence and Torah study to answer a heretic. Wouldn't be enough to memorize some stock answers to the most common questions? Second, the Talmud, in fact, recommends not to debate an Apikores, al least a Jewish Apikores, for the more one debates him, the more heretical he becomes. 

Said Rabbi Eliezer: “Be diligent in the study of Torah and know what to answer a heretic,” so that you can answer the challenges that are based on Scripture. Said Rabbi Yochanan, “That is only with regard to a pagan heretic, but as for a Jewish heretic, do not debate him, for he will become even more heretical.” (Sanhedrin 36, Shabbos 30a).

Furthermore, what is the connection between the three parts of the mishna? Finally, one wonders how and why I did different teachings of R. Eliezer are interconnected. The same Rabbi Elazar who says that one should develop a "good heart," also advises us to "know what to answer a heretic" and also tells us in Mishna 12, that we must  our fellows and respect and be in awe of our teachers. How does this all fit together?

Let's discuss this whole issue of whether one should or shouldn't debate Apikorsim. Now, it is clear that the Rabbis debated heretics extensively, see for example Sanhedrin 39a, Avodah Zarah, 16b-17a, Chagigah 5b and many others. At the same time, Chazal advise not responding to an Apikores. Rambam brings this law in his Commentary to the Mishna here and in Ch. 3 of Laws of Idolatry, although this distinction needs to be read into in the latter. Perhaps, this is why Rabbi Eliezer, quietly listened to the interpretation of a Biblical verse from Yakov of Kfar Sekanya('A"Z 16b; Eccl. R. i. 8).

Parenthetically, it is interesting that in every place that Rambam defines Apikores, he defines him differently( See Hil A"Z 3, Teshuvah 3). Now is not the place to discuss it but it is noteworthy that he seems to consider Apikores to be a flexible overall term for a sinner/ heretic and not for a specific type of a person.

So which is it? Do we debate heretics or do we not? Were all the heretics whom the Rabbis of the Talmud debated always not Jewish? It does not seem that way in many passages. For examples, see Menachos 65a.

It seems to me that one must store distinction between a private and the public debate. Private disputation with a Jewish heretis would not be productive for, as the Gemara says, he or she would just get more heretical. On the other hand, in public one must still counter a Jewish heretic, so that he does not remain victorious. In such a case, we are concerned about the public's perception more than about the effect on the heretic himself.

Rabbeinu Yonah similarly explains Rebbe Eliezer's quote above as follows: "Know how to respond to heretics, so others will not see you fail, and think the heretic is correct...ultimately profaning God's name." Certainly, Rabbeinu Yonah does not advocate answering dishonestly because this would Ziyuf Hatorah(Falsification of the Torah), possibly a capital offense. The Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo, Bava Kama 4:9) rules that while, ordinarily, all laws other than idolatry, murder and licentiousness are set aside under mortal danger, one may still not falsify the Torah Ziyuf ha-Torah is not overridden even by piku’ach nefesh(there are other authorities who disagree). Instead, what this means is that you must be superbly prepared, so that you will respond properly and in the winning matter. In the heat of the argument one may be pressured to resort to a falsehood in order to win. To avoid this, you must toil in Torah, so that you ALWAYS have the correct answers and never, ever fail, for failing in public for lack of knowing a response is not an option.

Maharal has an interesting explanation, which I elaborate. He says that the heretic here is the innner war voice of heresy in a person. One has truly delve into the Torah to find an answer that works for him personally and individually. Every scholar has a Torah of his own (A"Z 19a) and only that personal Torah can answer his personal questions.

In the next post, we will come back to the questions poised above.

Avos 2:15: Personal prayer and personal Service

Rabbi Shimon said: Be careful with the recitation of the Shema and the prayers. When you pray, do not regard your prayers as a fixed obligation(keva) but rather as [the asking for] mercy and supplication before G-d, as the verse states, 'For gracious and merciful is He, slow to anger, great in kindness, and relenting of the evil decree' (Joel 2:13). Do not be wicked in your own eyes."

The emphasis on not making one's prayer into a "fixed" obligation seems to conflict with the entire institution of prayer with its set times, requirement for a minyan and communal nature. It underscores to what extent the shift to the individual had taken hold by the time of R. Shimon. He was not the only one. 

Mishna Brachot, 4:3-4 and Talmud Brachot, 29b

Prayer is no longer something that is a substitute to a sacrifice and a public activity, where showing up is the person's main contribution. Now it requires the individual to put in inwardness and sincerity. This is also underscored by the verse that R. Shimon chooses as proof. Undoubtedly his audience immediately grasped that in context, this verse speak of a public gathering and a fast. Although R. Shimon could have brought an almost identical verse from Jonah, he chose the verse in Joel instead. This was, I conjecture, to highlight the shift in meaning from the communal to individual nature of prayer. Compare the two verse and their context.

R. Eliezer says, if one makes his prayer "fixed" ("Keva"), it is not considered a supplications.

What is "keva"? Rabbi Jacob ben Idi taught in the name of Rav Oshiya: Anyone whose prayer is like a heavy burden on him. The Rabbis taught: Whoever does not say it in the manner of supplication. Rabba and Rav Yosef both taught: Whoever is not able to add something new into it.

 "Even now," declares the Lord, "return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning." Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity(Joel 2:13).

He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.(Yonah 4:2)

Which would have been a more appropriate verse about prayer unless you were making a point?

Finally, R. Eliezer points out that one should not suffice with the public participation in a ritual but in private never pray. 'Do not be wicked when alone". Being a part of righteous nation is great but it is not enough. Prayer is individual and an individual must pray, with passion, with his own unique and elevated heart, even when alone.